Demonstrations, pickets,
sit-downs, break-ins, even letter bombs are constantly in the
British media, highlighting animal liberation. In November 1983
2,000 antivivisectionists marched on Biorex Laboratories in north
London, resulting in a mass sit-down outside the establishment.
Clashes with the police led to the arrest of twenty people; police
vans were attacked; and eventually mounted police were brought in
to break up the demonstration. Twenty-nine demonstrators were
arrested in December 1983 after an anti-factory farming picket of
the major meat-trade showpiece, the Royal Smithfield Show, in west
London. The demonstrations get bigger, the anger more intense. On
differing fronts the Hunt Saboteurs Association intervenes on
behalf of the hunted animal on approximately fifty hunts a week,
and the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) says not a day goes by
without their striking out illegally against those who exploit
animals.

The Labour Party certainly
felt some obligation to take a position on animal welfare. In its
1983 manifesto it intended to outlaw all forms of hunting with
dogs, make snares illegal, transform the Farm Animal Welfare
Council into a Standing Royal Commission on Animal Protection,
review the outdated 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act and give a 'high
priority' to the development of alternatives to animals, phase out
'extreme livestock systems' and ban live food animals. Animals
kept in zoos, circuses and safari parks would be included in
protective legislation. Although political parties are notorious
for not keeping to their manifesto promises, this is certainly
something for Labour animal welfarists to consider, and it had
massive influence on the animal welfare societies. In 1982 a spate
of TV documentaries on animals culminated in The
Animals Film
in the first week of
transmission of the new Channel Four. It was watched by 1 1/2
million people, more than the popular rock film
Woodstock
a few weeks later. Animal
rights groups continue to spring up in every town, and there have
even been allegations that the Special Branch is tapping the
telephones of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection,
surely a sign that a force is emerging for animal liberation.

Nevertheless, it has not
always been like that. Just a few years ago there was a sharp
divide between the traditional societies and the radical animal
liberationists like the ALF and the Hunt Saboteurs Association.
The traditionalists still clung to coffee mornings, polite
petitioning and letters to Members of Parliament. Since then the
water has really muddied. The British Union for the Abolition of
Vivisection (BUAV) has been entirely taken over by a young,
dynamic force of vegetarian animal libbers. The Northern Animal
Liberation League has grown, supporting the idea of mass
occupations of laboratories. Its militant style owes nothing to
traditional animal welfare. The ALF has grown, and the stand of
the Labour Party on animals has made all the societies think twice
about their own political positions. Inherently conservative
organizations urged their members to vote Labour, and now even
radical eyes are once again turning their attention to another
crack at 'reforming' the Royal Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals. Animal Aid, built by Jean Pink to a 12,000
membership in a matter of seven years, has certainly been
instrumental in reviving the large demonstrations and pickets. The
talk among animal libbers is now of strategies, directions,
relationships with other human campaigns and the first crack in
the wall of animal exploitation. But a Conservative Government has
recently been elected for another five years, and it is no friend
of the direct activist, whether for animals or for humans. With
basic trade union rights under legislative attack, can animal
liberationists keep up the momentum? Will they fade away like the
radical antivivisectionists of Victorian Britain? Will the anger
become absorbed by respectable pressure-group politics? Will the
frustration felt by some activists lead to violent attacks against
actual perpetrators of animal suffering, like scientists and
factory farmers? The anonymous Animal Rights Militia have already
sent letter bombs to the Prime Minister. In this chapter I try to
unearth the aspirations, inspiration and agitation of activists to
whom animal liberation is an all-embracing passion. There are, of
course, many more who are equally committed, equally concerned,
but the people I have spoken to will influence, or have
influenced, the shape and direction of animal liberation in
Britain. They all represent different shades of militancy,
especially by comparison with their counterparts of twenty years
ago. They are all vegetarian or vegan and strongly opinionated
about the correct strategy for the future. They are not always in
agreement.

* * *

I asked Kim Stallwood,
29-year-old campaigns officer of the BUAV, whether his
organization, formed in the nineteenth century, was militant:

*

In my definition the BUAV
is a militant organization. It's prepared to run risks and
prepared to challenge and question. I've had to organize three
large national demonstrations now. In April 1982, at the Porton
Down Ministry of Defence experimental research station, we had
6,000 people demonstrate and the first example of mass civil
disobedience, the biggest ever animal rights demo, with 2,000
going through the fences of the station. In April 1983 8,000
marched to Carshalton in Surrey from south London, some 10 miles,
to oppose the BIBRA Laboratories. In November 1983 we had 2,000
people from a much localized appeal who marched on Biorex
Laboratory in north London. Obviously BUAV has taken over the role
of organizing the big national demonstrations . . . [and is] more
confrontational than in the past. We see this as part of our
general political campaigning. We see things as they really are:
we are up against big business; we are not a sentimental
organization wringing our hands, saying how awful animal cruelty
is. ... I want to see the BUAV absolutely polarize the Tory
Government, to be specific and personal. I want posters, leaflets,
propaganda which has a photograph attacking Government Ministers
who are anti-animal like David Mellor, Parliamentary
Under-Secretary at the Home Office, responsible for animal
experimentation, photographs of experiments saying if you voted
for the Tories last June, you voted for this. ... I would like to
see civil disobedience directed towards local Conservative Party
offices.

How active is
the B UA V?

When I first joined the
organization in 1978 it was appallingly archaic and Dickensian. It
had a paper membership of 4,000, with hardly any active members.
Head office supplied no facilities, not even leaflets! The
situation has now been completely reversed. We have about 120
local contacts with a membership of 16,000. We are pioneering the
use of computers to supply our activists with printouts of
members, MPs and laboratories in their area. WTe don't
want a passive membership - you can't change society that way. We
now have specialists in all areas, politics, our revamped
newspaper Liberator, defence funds for those arrested and
with legal costs, scientific research, all wound together.

Do you support
the illegal or almost illegal direct-action animal liberation
groups?

Our policy is to support
the activists in their direct action tactics morally but not in a
physical or financial way. We give them space in our newspaper
because we think they have a very important role to play.

How did the
last general election result effect you?

We were very disappointed
that Labour didn't get in. The movement on its own will not
achieve animal liberation. We've got to take the issue out into
the trade unions, political parties, women's groups, professional
organizations and so on. That's how we should use the time until
the next election. We will then have a much bigger impact. It's
tough because we've got to get over the human prejudice that we
are a superior species. But animal liberation gives you an
enormous insight into the working of society because when people
actually grasp the issues, they start to question their own
motivations and values. There's an awful lot at stake in animal
lib, a drastic readjustment. People who have just joined the
movement on gut reaction will be a bit scared by that description
because you are challenging an awful lot of established views,
prejudices and ways of life. We are asking people to rebel
basically. . . . Our political work is vital, we really have got
to slot the issue alongside disarmament, unemployment, and its
going to be very difficult and take a long time.

People have really got to
start bringing this issue up in the trade unions. If we could get
two or three unions to support our campaign against the
Government's White Paper on animal experimentation (viewed as
pro-scientist, anti-animal), we could see shop workers refusing to
handle cosmetics or the lorry drivers refusing to transport
materials. The possibilities are endless. . . . It's not only a
moral question but has vital social, political and economic
aspects to it. The movement only sees it in moral terms, but it's
got to understand that the drug companies, for example, are making
hundreds of millions of pounds out of abusing animals and making
people sick, and it's in their interests we are ill.

But aren't you
expecting activists to agitate for perhaps another decade without
any reforms?

It depends on what you
mean by reforms. We have had concrete reforms like Islington and
Newham Borough Councils accepting the Animals' Charter and the
outlawing of Club Row animal street market in East London. They
are rare, very rare. But we have had real success, in that in the
last five years the movement has radically changed. God knows what
it will be like in five years' time. That's how you measure
things. I'm much more optimistic. . . .

* * *

Certainly one of those
recent rare success stories has been the campaign for animals
initiated by Val Veness as deputy leader of Labour's Islington
Council. Way back in 1976 Val Veness, as a councillor, was
approached by some local residents who were opposed to the circus
that was coming to local council-owned free space. She started
reading their literature, agreed with them and ensured that the
circus was banned from council-owned land in the borough
forthwith. Along with the present local Labour MP, Jeremy Corbyn,
she read on the subject:

It started off with horror
of what was happening to animals, but eventually I started to look
at the problem as a socialist. I thought that those who share this
planet with us have the right to a life free from pain, distress
and exploitation. ... As a woman, I am oppressed, at the bottom of
the pile and just stamping on the next lot down, which in those
terms were the animals. . . .

*

If you want real
socialism, then other species must be liberated. The whole thing
just fell in and linked up. The one things that really clicked
with me, and the reason why I attended the Porton Down
demonstration to begin with, was the plastic bullets used in
Northern Ireland, and the Porton Down tests on ballistics —
animals being used to exploit and keep down another section of
humans.

The Animals'
Charter is a detailed document intent on eradicating animal abuse
in one borough, but how did it come about?

When we returned to
council office in May 1982 I began to think out the whole issue. I
thought, if you can ban circuses, there must be other things local
government can do. I built up a good relationship here with my
environmental health officers, and we found a whole lot of
legislation that we could use in connection with feral cats,
companion animals, pet shops, circuses and even factory farms and
hunting. We went to the Co-operative movement because of the junky
food in Co-op supermarkets these days. We looked up the Rochdale
Pioneers, one of whose demands is to stop the bosses' adulteration
of food. So we are trying to shift the whole food policy on
factory farming. I want to do something about the dissection of
animals in O- and A-level examinations. Did you realize that if
you are an ethnic vegetarian, you can't do home economics at
O-level because you would be in contact with meat? Now, that's
racism. . . . On the practical side we now have a very good feral
cat policy: trapping, neutering, vaccination, returning to site
and homing the kittens. We have properly trained animal wardens,
not dog catchers, and we are looking at establishing our own dog
kennels and a clinic where animals can be spayed and neutered
cheaply. We have also turned down applications for two further pet
shops.

What has been
the response from your fellow councillors and from local people?

Our fellow councillors
thought it a bit strange at first and used to call us the 'Cat
Food Brigade', but I have constantly argued the political link,
and Victor Schonfeld's The
Animals Film
has been the thing.
It actually shows the political links. We have shown the film to
the Coop Party. The councillors have now seen it; we have
discussed the issues, and the overwhelming majority here clearly
now see the link. Once I go out and argue the point I have no
trouble. It's very popular. For example, local people who have
been feeding the stray cats are now coming out of the woodwork to
talk to us because they know the animals will not be put down. Of
course, the press has tried to discredit us, saying that it is
birth control on the rates; in fact, it's a saving.

Another Labour
Government is needed then?

In terms of political
philosophy I can't see a Tory Government making any major reforms
in animal welfare. It attacks the very class of people they
represent. . . . We fought hard for that commitment to animal
rights in the Labour manifesto. I think we can expand it by the
next manifesto and then really get some major reforms through.

It can be argued that
compared with the plight of animals in experimentation and factory
farming, blood sports are a far lesser cruelty. But the anti-blood
sports movement attracts many thousands of activists. The Hunt
Saboteurs Association was formed way back in 1964 and has always
attracted the most militant of animal libbers, offering them a
direct, albeit non-violent, approach to stop animals' suffering.
With the growth of the movement in the last few years the Hunt
Saboteurs have not been left behind. They do not hit the headlines
as much as they did in the early to mid-1970s because their
activities have become much more accepted in the media's eyes. But
they are still out in the field throughout the foxhunting season.
They have a membership of 5,000, established local groups and a
working relationship with the larger League Against Cruel Sports,
which has led the parliamentary campaign to outlaw hunting with
hounds. Lin Murray has been an active Hunt Saboteur for the last
two and a half years, and she spoke about the state of the art of
hunt sabotage:

*

There's been a really big
upsurge of people who want to go out lately. It used to be the
same old people, but loads of new people are coming in. There are
three new groups in London alone, and a couple of new groups in
Essex, which is my area. . . . In Essex we are sabotaging up to
four hunts a week, with groups going out mid-week.

What tactics
are favoured now?

To me the most important
thing is the distraction of the hounds. Some people say we are
just a load of yobs who go out screaming around the countryside,
but it's not the case. Hunt Saboteur tactics are very complicated.
We are not interested in the riders; we are interested in what
will kill the fox - the hounds and the huntsman -so the sole
purpose of hunt sabotage is to sab the hounds. For example, we go
on to the 'line' of a fox, and we use our horn-blowing to call
hounds over to us rather than the quarry. The fox is a clever
animal, and if it can be given just a few minutes, that could mean
its life. . . . We pre-beat the area before the meet to scare away
animals, lay false trails to confuse the hounds and so on, but we
never do anything that could harm animal or human. That would be
completely self-defeating and wrong.

Why do people
become hunt saboteurs?

Frustration. Going out on
a hunt sab, you really think you are doing something. It's your
chance to get out there and actually stop it physically. The Hunt
Saboteurs Association is also a breeding ground and starting point
for animal rights.

Is there a
feeling of dispiritedness in the HSA at the failure of the Labour
Party in the last election?

No, not at all. You are
never going to get a total ban on hunting. Although a Labour
Government might put it out, the Tories would stick it back in
again. The Hunt Saboteurs are the direct action part of the
banning blood sports; the League are more Parliament-orientated,
and we leave that up to them. Although we do film shows, talks,
leafleting, we are very much involved in the field, saving
individual animals.

The thing that does not
change is the violent response of the hunting fraternity towards
the sabs. As the 1983 season opened, Lin talked of current cases
of aggression on the part of hunt supporters. As sabs keep
strictly to their non-violent tactics and attempt to avoid
confrontation, they can be badly battered.

* * *

Although movements are not
really about individuals, there are two people who have kept
anti-blood sports a vibrant movement while others have stagnated:
David Wetton, the Hunt Saboteurs Association secretary for over
fifteen years, and Dick Course, now executive director of the
League Against Cruel Sports. After accidentally coming across a
hare-coursing event in the early 1970s, Course vowed to get
involved in its abolition and joined the League Against Cruel
Sports. His fight since then has had two goals, to radicalize the
society he joined, and to ban blood sports. He has also played a
leading role in getting the Labour Party to make a manifesto
commitment to outlaw blood sports. Under his influence the League
has been transformed from a very polite anti-blood sports society,
with titled people sitting on its committee, to a much harder,
campaigning organization, as he acknowledges:

*

As late as 1978 the vast
majority of the animal welfare societies - in fact, all of them -
were totally controlled by Conservatives, people who cared deeply
about animals, I think, but didn't give a damn about people.
They're the kind who lavish a lot of money on a pet poodle while
an old tramp might be abused in their own street. I found those
people offensive, and the biggest offence, as far as I was
concerned, was that although the Labour Party was making
sympathetic noises about animals, they didn't give a damn; they
were only interested in noises from the Conservative Party. . . .

How different
is it now?

Totally different. It's
not 'Let's drink tea with the vicar and be "terribly nice" to the
mayor' - that's gone. There is now a very high degree of political
awareness and, of course, a different type of person. It's very
encouraging to see young people involved. All the societies are
now radical, even the RSPCA has shifted ground. Many criticize it
for being reactionary and Tory, and certainly it is very
conservative. But some of the things they are now campaigning for
were unthinkable ten years ago.

What was the
League's role in the 1983 general election?

Back in 1979 we were out
for as many party manifesto commitments as we could get. We did
support the Labour Party with a donation of £80,000 from League
funds, £30,000 to inform people that anti-blood sports policy was
in the manifesto and £50,000 to help Labour win. We demonstrated
to the Labour Party that if it was prepared to do what we wanted,
we would certainly do everything in our power to get it elected.
The same thing needed to apply in the 1983 general election. The
1983 Labour manifesto commitment was the best we could have hoped
for in our wildest dreams. It wasn't totally pure, but you've got
to bear in mind the difference between philosophy and politics.

The League was in fact one
of the groups that broke away from the General Election
Co-ordinating Committee and formed the more radical Animal
Protection Alliance (APA). In October 1982 the APA placed
advertisements in the national press asking people to promise
their vote to the party that was best for animal welfare. Course
claims an 'unbelievable feedback', with up to half a million
people pledging their votes for animals before the June 1983
election. The APA was also enthusiastic as a national public
opinion poll had declared between 5 and 15 per cent of the
population was willing to have the animal issue decide which way
it would vote. This would, of course, make all political parties
look very closely at this issue if they thought up to 15 per cent
of the total votes were in the offing. But the election came a lot
earlier than people thought, and other issues decided the outcome
of the election. The APA did claim some minor victories, however.
Paddy Ashdown, a Liberal and pro-animal, was elected in Yeovil in
the West of England. (The APA recommended that Labour voters
should switch to Liberal in safe Conservative seats, and they
claim that this resulted in a Liberal victory.) Also Robin
Corbett, a veteran Labour MP and pro-animal, took a marginal
Birmingham seat by a few votes, and he thanked the animal libbers
for his very close victory.

If Labour had
been elected in 1979, what do you think would have been abolished
by now?

Stag hunting and hare
coursing. They are tiny, minority activities. In 1983 we would
then have seen the end of foxhunting and the phasing out of
factory farming and of certain experiments on animals.

Considering the
recent arrival of Cruise missiles, isn't it mistaken to be so
concerned about animals?

I think Cruise missiles
help us explain our case. Someone who is willing to press a button
that would blow away millions of innocent people is the same sort
of person who would hunt down a fox without any consideration for
the morality of what he or she is doing. I think these things are
inextricably linked; both entail disregard for, and contempt of,
life. This is where I think the animal question is at its most
important. Because we are desensitizing society, people are
prepared to tolerate animal experimentation, factory farming,
blood sports, all involving hideous cruelty. . . .

Recently Roy
Hattersley, deputy leader of the Labour Party, said that one of
the reasons why Labour lost the election was because of its
concentration on what he sees as 'peripheral' subjects, and he did
name blood sports. How do you feel about that?

A grave danger. If the
Labour people aren't looking for the animal vote, then there is no
reason to think any of the other parties will. The animal vote
will be fragmented. . . . We can't match our opponents pound for
pound. The vivisection industry is a multi-million pound one. Our
only hope is the ballot box. There is no other issue that attracts
the kind of public support we get. But we've got to mobilize that
support effectively. . . .

What about
demonstrations, pickets, etc?

Expressions like 'animal
liberation' and 'animal rights' are counterproductive to electoral
possibilities. . . . Demos in the name of animal protection, the
reduction of cruelty and unnecessary suffering are very good,
attracting media and public support. But it's a very fine balance.
The movement is getting stronger and we are losing the cranky
image which prevented it from becoming a political issue in the
1940s, 1950s and 1960s, but if people pursue the animal rights
issue where it comes into conflict with human welfare (which is
happening), we could go right back to where we were. So the
stronger we get, the greater the threat from our extremities. . .
. Sending letter bombs to the Prime Minister doesn't help us at
all. The danger is that we will be viewed as a bunch of nutters;
we will become a joke. People are going to sit down and eat meat,
and we are going to have to accept that, like it or not. People
are going to want to have drugs, cures for cancer, arthritis, etc.
We've got to accept that as well. If we can't come up with
constructive and more positive alternatives, then all we can do is
campaign against some of the more outrageous aspects of animal
experimentation, such as cosmetics, alcohol and tobacco testing,
psychological tests, weapons, etc.

What sustains
you?

I want to win, even it
it's only the abolition of hare coursing. I don't want to be a
flash in the pan. Headlines in Wednesday's papers wrap fish and
chips on Thursday.

* * *

Two groups are in the
vanguard of radical animal liberation, the Animal Liberation Front
and the Northern Animal Liberation League (NALL). The ALF is
illegal, whereas NALL's activities are borderline. The ALF
believes in destroying the facilities that cause animals
suffering: laboratories, factory and fur farms, slaughterhouses,
hunt kennels and all allied equipment, especially that used for
transportation. It also believes in rescuing the animals involved
and re-homing them. It has a national network of ALF supporters
who, though not active themselves, give and raise funds. The NALL
is opposed to clandestine, middle-of-the-night operations and
believes in mass occupations of laboratories in the light of day.
It does not remove animals except for immediate propaganda reasons
or unless they are in 'extreme, external torture' or are stolen
pets. It concentrates more on obtaining photographic and
documentary evidence of animal suffering. Nevertheless, even such
tactics may break a myriad of laws, from disturbing the peace to
malicious damage. NALL had about eighty arrests in 1982, of which
50 per cent were bound over to keep the peace.

Ronnie Lee has taken some
time off from being an active ALF member and is now an ALF
spokesman. Lee's personal history of animal protection has run in
tandem with the growth of the Animal Liberation Front. He became
involved with Hunt Saboteurs in 1971, attracted by their direct
approach to saving animals, but he was dismayed at their failure
to sabotage the hunting of foxcubs. which occurs before the
foxhunting season proper. Thoughts turned to illegal direct
action:

*

In late summer 1972 a few
of us formed the Band of Mercy, named after the youth group of the
RSPCA in the 1800s. They used to damage guns that were used on
bird shoots, and our first actions were against cubhunters. We
used to let down the tyres of their vehicles, put tacks in their
locks and leave a note to say why we had done it. Then a couple of
us heard about a vivisection laboratory being built near Milton
Keynes. I looked at it a few times with Cliff Goodman, and we
decided to burn it down: £45,000 worth of damage was caused in two
attacks. We started to attack laboratory animal-breeding
establishments, damaging and burning their vehicles. I and Robin
Howard completely destroyed a seal-culling boat in the Wash in
June 1974. The seal hunt was called off and has not taken place
since, perhaps an early victory for direct action. Cliff and I
were eventually caught in August 1974 trying to break into
laboratories near Bicester. We were each sentenced to three years'
imprisonment but were released on parole after one year. While we
were inside Mike Husskisson rescued the 'smoking beagles' (dogs
undergoing tobacco-smoking experiments) from 1C I, and that
cheered us up no end! When we came out we met a lot of people who
wanted to get involved in that sort of action, and about thirty of
us formed the Animal Liberation Front in 1976. The attack on the
Charles River Laboratories was the first ALF activity: vehicles
were damaged, and several thousands pound's worth of damage was
caused. Then in February 1977 I was caught again after taking mice
out of an animal-breeding centre in Carshalton, Surrey. I was
imprisoned for twelve months.

What's happened
since then?

It's just grown: there is
now one ALF action every day. There are ALF groups all over the
world - in the USA, Canada, Holland, Germany, New Zealand,
Australia, South Africa and France — and we don't always hear of
all of them. I reckon we've got between 500 to 1,000 active
members who are also involved in more traditional campaigning. ALF
groups meet informally, in small cells. Some operate in their
locality; others travel 50 to 100 miles for a raid.

What are the
aims of the ALF?

To save animals from
suffering here and now. To inflict an economic loss on people who
exploit animals, resulting in less profit for them to plough back
into their animal exploitation business. (For instance, if you
damage a lab, they have to increase their security and that's less
money spent on animal experiments.) That's the short-term aim. The
long-term aim is to increase activities, to escalate events to a
point where all of these industries are under threat and can't
operate.

What's wrong
with traditional campaigning methods?

Well, people have tried
them for over a hundred years and they haven't worked. The
situation of animals in vivisection labs and factory farms in
particular has got worse. All the campaigning hasn't alleviated
it. But I don't think direct action is the opposite of
parliamentary change; I think it will help it. Parliament will
legislate when there is so much pressure in the country, so much
trouble, that it will have to legislate. But I can't say when that
will be. Direct action has been the main reason why the manifestos
of political parties, in particular the Labour Party, are so much
better.

Isn't the
Animal Rights Militia (ARM) just a logical extension of the ALF?
In
The Animals Film you did say that you could foresee a time when
a cruel professor could be shot on his doorstep. Is the ARM
connected with the ALF?

No. We don't know who the
ARM are. A lot of people suspect that they might not be genuine
animal rights people at all. We certainly don't agree with what
they did.

Have the ARM
letter bombs caused you any lasting damage?

The damage hasn't been as
bad as we thought it would be. It was big news at the time, but it
seems to have gone very quiet, and I hope it doesn't happen again.
I was surprised that the police didn't make more inquiries than
they did. Do they know more about who actually did it than they
have let on?

How many
animals have been saved by the ALF?

Many thousands. This year
several thousand rats and mice alone. Through damage, hundreds of
thousands.

Have you ever
threatened someone who works in a factory farm or lab? Do you see
a difference between those who own one and those who work in it?

It really depends on what
they do. It would be a bad policy to threaten ordinary workers
because they can be a great help to us. We've had quite a lot of
inside information from people in labs, for example. We are really
after the people who are actually cruel to animals. It's not our
policy to threaten people.

Isn't it all
hopelessly Utopian?

Why demand tiny little
changes when you can demand something so much better? Most animal
cruelty is caused by the profit motive. If the profit motive did
not exist, the pressure for people to treat animals cruelly would
be greatly reduced. But I don't think that's the only reason why
animals are mistreated. One of the main reasons is the attitude of
people who think that animals are of no consequence.

Aren't you
encouraging people to end up in prison?

I think it's the other way
round. If I wasn't doing that, I'd be allowing the animals to
remain in intolerable conditions. Going to prison for a year, say,
is very little by comparison with what a laboratory rat or a
battery chicken goes through.

What sustains
you?

It's the gut reaction. The
philosophical part is very important to explain why it happens,
but you've got to have some sort of gut reaction to keep going. A
concept that keeps turning over in my mind is that of human
imperialism. Although we are only one species among many on earth,
we've set up a Reich totally dominating the other animals,
enslaving them. Thought of in those terms, it produces an even
stronger feeling for radical change than people are currently
demanding. . . . Animals are so defenceless, unable to fight back,
that it makes me very angry.